(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.11.30 2017나32033

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.11.30 2017나32033

근저당권말소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

The court's explanation about this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following changes, thereby admitting it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

From the 2nd bottom of the changed part, “90 million won,” the mortgagee shall add “as the defendant,” to the following:

2 The following shall be added to the second last place of the election, "by the request of the plaintiff who is the owner of the land and building in this case for the exclusion of disturbance."

3 The 3rd side "Plaintiff" shall add "the Plaintiff is the owner of the land and building of this case, even if it is the owner of the land and building of this case."

3 15 to 18 parallels shall be dried as follows.

A. First, we examine whether the instant land and buildings are owned by the network D and merely title trust in the future of the Plaintiff.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23, 24, and 28 of Eul, the defendant received a certificate of the right to registration of the land and building of this case from the network D and the account of Seoul Livestock Industry Cooperatives (Account Number F) in the name of the plaintiff was mainly used by the network D. After the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land and building of this case, the increased deposit deposit deposit amount of KRW 20 million was deposited into the above account and used by the network D. The fact that the network D actually manages the above real estate after the ownership transfer registration is completed, G, and H are the ownership of the network D, but it is recognized that the fact that the plaintiff submitted a confirmation document that the plaintiff knew that it would damage the name of the plaintiff in the future.

However, since a person registered as an owner of a real estate is presumed to have acquired the ownership by due process and cause, the fact that the registration is based on the title trust has the burden of proof for the claimant.

Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90883 Decided April 24, 2008

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019.01.16 2017나2041826

-대전지방법원 2020.07.15 2019나100767

-서울고등법원 2017.10.17 2017누52278

-서울고등법원 2018.06.20 2016나2034456

-대전지방법원 2020.09.09 2019나100286